Comparing the Carbon Footprint of Conventional and Organic Vineyards in Northern Italy

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The manuscript discusses important topic, since the comparison of conventional and organic vineyards and cultivation is important to find the difference between the two types of management practices.

In the same time the comparison has certain difficulties as organic farms have strict regulations to use the certifications. Contrary to this, the conventional farms have the possibility to apply completely the same methods as the organic ones (no pesticides, no chemical nutrients, cover crops etc.) or use pesticides, use herbicides etc. Therefore, some of the conventional ones have similar environmental impact that those following the organic rules. As an example, some of the conventional farms were using 0 kg nitrous-based fertilizers while others used 72.59 kg. In this context some of the conventional farms works like the organic ones. It could distort the comparison, and suggest that conventional farms have a lower impact, while it depends on the decisions of the farmers how they want to treat the vineyard, while organic farmers have less room for manoeuvre.     

 Twenty-five wineries were involved in the study over 9 vintages which makes the results comparable. It should be mentioned from the years 2009, 2010, 2011, 2014, 2016 have results from both cultivation method from larger numbers of case studies.

I suggest the modification of the title as follows: Comparing the carbon footprint of conventional and organic vineyards in northern Italy. Present title suggests that all of the conventional and organic vineyards in the northern part of Italy was involved in the study.

Chapter 2.2. shows those operations which we neglected in the comparison. Please clear which were left in it. It is mentioned: “from post-harvest operations through to the delivery of the following year’s grape to the winery”. Please list those operations which were taken into account during the comparison: for example, were pruning, canopy management and harvest included or only the plant protection and nutrient supply? Erosion is mentioned as one of the main factors of greenhouse gas emission. In the case of organic farming the mechanical soil cultivation is more frequent resulting a higher emission caused by the machines, while the cover crops should reduce the GHG as soil is not eroded. Did the authors include it in the study?

According to the Materials and Methods year as a factor was involved in the statistical analysis, while later it is not discussed in detailed. Climatic condition of the years could have significant effect on the numbers of spraying therefore on the amount of fuel for field operations. Please include the effect year (if it is relevant).  

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

The manuscript entitled, Comparing the carbon footprint in northern Italy’s conventional vs organic vineyards’ is valid and interesting topic. In this manuscript, the authors are tried to indirect estimate the carbon footprint to assess the impact of an activity in terms of greenhouse gas emissions in the conventional as well as organic Viticulture production system.

The manuscript is written but I have some serious observations. My main concern is the methodologies of this estimation. As this is an indirect method for CF calculation, so wee need to make this more informative. Authors are required to explain in details about the CF calculation, datum and equations used for the calculation with proper reference. Better to give details calculation protocol in the supplementary files. Moreover a paragraph about the general cultivation practices of both vineyard (for both conventional and organic) need to be incorporated.  

Table 1 need proper references.

I did not found Table 2. Please check the Table numbering.

Table 3, need to check. The kg ha-1 should be written as kg ha^-1

The title of Fig. 3 needs to be changed. Delete the portion, The figure shows the……/. Same is to be applied in the rest figures.

The introduction and discussion part need to be strengthen.

Author Response

Please see the attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors has revised the manuscript significantly. But still have some typos. This can be resolved during proofreading. Please check the Table  3.  kg ha-1 should be corrected. 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx